This is basically the Atheist's Wager:
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
P.S. I did not make this up.
2007-03-08 13:10:57 · 24 answers · asked by 2 days after my B day :) 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I've always liked that wager. It makes a lot more sense than Pascal's. Plus, I happen to agree with it. I think as long as you live your life well you shouldn't worry about what might come afterwards.
2007-03-08 13:14:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 13⤊ 0⤋
Pascal's wager... MOTHER F'ER! I hate it! Richard Dawkins responds this way "There is something distinctly odd about the argument, however. Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy. At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will. I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don't. Pascal's wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God." and "Then again, suppose the god who confronts you when you die turns out to be Baal, and suppose Baal is just as jealous as his old rival Yahweh was said to be. Mightn't Pascal have been better off wagering on no god at all rather than on the wrong god? Indeed, doesn't the sheer number of potential gods and goddesses on whom one might bet vitiate Pascal's whole logic?" What's really funny is that he calls it the "Anti-Pascal Wager"
2016-03-28 23:50:46 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While I agree 100% with this sentiment it really is not a wager in the classic sense as Pascal's. But this is why it makes more sense. I think you missed the part about wasting your time in worship but I forget.
Placing quotes on wager would have been better.
So should we call it a maxim?
2007-03-08 13:25:57 · answer #3 · answered by robertangel30 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Better reasoning for the first part, but it fails to take into account the existence of a non-benevolent god.
2007-03-08 13:14:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I like the Atheist's Wager ten times more then Pascal's Wager.
2007-03-08 13:15:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 0⤋
Yea! I'm going to heaven! Yea!
*ahem*
Sorry...
Well, it makes better sense than Pascal's Wager. Guess I had the right idea all along.
2007-03-08 13:18:19 · answer #6 · answered by link955 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It paints a much better view of a benevolent divinity.
However, that should be intrinsic within humanity.
2007-03-08 13:17:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Please excuse my ignorance, but don't Atheists refute the presence of a higher power or God(s)? Sounds more like the thoughts or wager of a person that wants to hedge their bets.
2007-03-08 13:22:45 · answer #8 · answered by Mikisew 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is probably the best description of purpose and religion that I have heard in a long time.
2007-03-08 13:17:13 · answer #9 · answered by buggin 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Awesome.
2007-03-08 13:22:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋